What’s In A Title? ‘The Conjuring’ Producer And New Line In Dispute Over TV Rights

EXCLUSIVE: There may be some awkward moments at the world premiere for the supernatural thriller The Conjuring tonight at LA Film Fest. I’ve learned that one of the movie’s producers, Tony DeRosa-Grund, and the studio behind it, New Line, are heading to arbitration over the TV rights to the project. Make that the TV rights to the title of the project.

The Conjuring is inspired by Ed and Lorraine Warren, experts in paranormal activities, who investigated the spirits — both friendly and sinister — who allegedly inhabited the Rhode Island farmhouse of the Perron family. Texas-based DeRosa-Grund had been looking to turn the story into a movie for more tan two decades. After Ed played to him a tape from the case, he wrote a treatment and titled the project The Conjuring. DeRosa-Grund eventually teamed with producer Peter Safran, who brought in writers Chad and Carey Hayes. DeRosa-Grund and Safran took the pitch out in 2009, landing at Summit in a bidding war for mid- against high-six figures but the deal stalled. The project then moved to New Line, changed its name to The Warren Files before reverting to its original name. James Wan was tapped to direct a cast led by Vera Farmiga, Patrick Wilson, Lili Taylor and Ron Livingston.

Meanwhile, DeRosa-Grund retained the TV and other rights, including comic books, to the property and recently pitched a Conjuring TV series for Lionsgate TV, which bought it. However, as the movie was gaining momentum with strong pre-release tracking, I hear New Line threatened legal action against DeRosa-Grund and Lionsgate for using the title for a TV series. I hear New Line’s argument was that the studio got the title The Conjuring for the movie and since it is coming out first, they should be able to block anything else with that title. I hear in its efforts to control the title, New Line is applying pressure on DeRosa-Grund to scrap the series plans, and the two sides are now headed to arbitration. There is no date set yet, but the filing has been made and New Line and DeRosa-Grund are expected to sit down with a negotiator in the fall.

The dispute raises a very interesting question about what exactly constitutes owning the rights to a property for a particular media. In TV, title is key for selling source material, like a book, movie or a series. If you are selling the TV rights to a well known property but not the title, what exactly are you selling?

13 Comments

*EYEROLL* Seriously? Some people have too much time on their hands. They should focus on strong scripts and good storytelling…and drop this silly business over a title.

Dr Know • on Jun 21, 2013 5:34 pm

silly business over a title?!??!? When your series is going to be associated with a major motion picture – the title is HUGE! Being able to draft on the feature’s exposure could make or a break the new show.

And titles are copyrightable are they? If New Line’s only beef is title, not content, then I don’t think they have a case. Now, leverage is a different story. They can apply pressure against future business, but I don’t think they can block the title.

Martin A. • on Jun 21, 2013 5:34 pm

Either way, just because they may have a good picture on their hands doesn’t necessarily mean the TV show will bring the same quality elements to it, possibly damaging the brand. As a film-goer, I find that the equally enticing “…from the creator/s of…” always perks my interest in something, and that of my friend, if theirs is work we enjoyed. I hope all the parties involved can resolve this. Life’s too short for pettiness.

dannyJ • on Jun 21, 2013 5:34 pm

We saw a very good little indie film that screened at Slamdance a couple of years ago.

It was also a supernatural thriller called “THE CONJURER”. We watched it again when it played on Showtime.

So it’s not like a similar name dealing with ghosts hasn’t been already out there.

We actually thought CONJURING was a sequel to CONJURER or at least another take on it.

rambler • on Jun 21, 2013 5:34 pm

I rented Conjurer from netflix last year and it was really good for a low budget flick. Excellent spooky vibe with some nice touches. I also thought these two were related somehow but that didn’t bother me, in fact I got more interested and I believe the original title for the new Conjuring movie was something like The Warren Files. They could always call the tv series this name and just say it’s based on the Warrens since their name is even on the poster with the word – true -

Zuul • on Jun 21, 2013 5:34 pm

“Experts in paranormal activities?” Really? And where pray tell did they acquire their “expertise”? The tutelage of Dr. Peter Venkman? Or from Tobin’s Spirit Guide?

You can’t copyright a title. There are many duplicate names in the film world which often cause confusion, including one of my own films, that has older sibling created in 1998. That didn’t stop us from using the title, nor would it stop someone from doing a TV series with the same name.

Lee • on Jun 21, 2013 5:34 pm

As I recall, you can’t copyright a title…

Karen • on Jun 21, 2013 5:34 pm

Don’t think this is an eye-roll at all. In fact. It brings up a very interesting point where ‘title’ and ‘ownership’ collide. I do believe they should go hand and hand and be protected by original authorship. This is one to follow.

RJ • on Jun 21, 2013 5:34 pm

It’s well-settled. Titles aren’t copyrightable. I’m shocked that their lawyers aren’t up on this. The key, however, is whether they associate that title with the same story. That’s where the issue is. And that’s where the article fails to cover the topic properly. It’s not the title. It’s associating the title with the same story. That’s the issue.

ipman • on Jun 21, 2013 5:34 pm

There are literally millions of dollars at stake here — guessing it was a split rights deal between the producer and NL — so a TV series able to legally draft off what looks like a hit feature film plus it is apparently able to go to market with any hold back — it could be worth millions in TV revenues, especially with a company like Lionsgate as the producers partner.

Sounds like NL is upset that they did not get the TV rights and is looking for some manufactured excuse to shut the producer down.

Bruce • on Jun 21, 2013 5:34 pm

We do not know from this article the technical issues. Since it is an arbitration rather than court filing, it must be a matter of contract, not trademark or other intellectual property law. There may be ambiguities in the NL contract. To the extent titles can be protected, there is usually language granting use of the title, and it is usually clear if this is exclusive or non-exclusive. Also, it could be an issue of the MPAA Title Registration system, which allows companies such as New Line to lock priority usage of a title, and per this industry system they could have the right to block Lionsgate’s use of it, or there could be a dispute regarding the scope of priority in NL’s title registration.

ipman • on Jun 21, 2013 5:34 pm

MPAA has no jurisdictionality over TV usage, just film so MPAA registrations can’t block anything in TV.